All science so far at EN&V.Not that there's anything wrong with suppressor tRNAs but are they likely to exist under the ID premise? In addition, suppressor tRNAs will not bind to mRNA without another tRNA upstream or downstream depending on which position of the ribosome it currently occupies. Or do these clowns think UGA serves as an initiation codon? However, I must admit that a nearly universal genetic code doesn't make much sense if you reject common descent.

ETA: They may claim that the mRNA's 5' end is on the right side of the strand.

Edited by sparc on Oct. 01 2012,01:00

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

William A. Dembski, Doctor, Doctor is back at the grindstone with a new 'essay' this morning on EN$V.

I suspect he is obligated to waste a certain amount of electrons per year to keep his DI paycheck. He trotted out this old chestnut, "Intelligent design, as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence (such patterns exhibit specified complexity), subsumes many special sciences, including archeology, forensics, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence." The same bullshit for nearly 20 years.

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

William A. Dembski, Doctor, Doctor is back at the grindstone with a new 'essay' this morning on EN$V.

I suspect he is obligated to waste a certain amount of electrons per year to keep his DI paycheck. He trotted out this old chestnut, "Intelligent design, as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence (such patterns exhibit specified complexity), subsumes many special sciences, including archeology, forensics, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence." The same bullshit for nearly 20 years.

It should be noted that Dembski claims to have predicted ENCODE's "no junk DNA" conclusion back in 1998

Design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus, on an evolutionary view, we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function.

By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA” were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Should have been done case-insensitive. Several words appear fairly large and twice, once with the first letter capitalized and one with it lower-case.

Geoff released a case-insensitive update:

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

William A. Dembski, Doctor, Doctor is back at the grindstone with a new 'essay' this morning on EN$V.

I suspect he is obligated to waste a certain amount of electrons per year to keep his DI paycheck. He trotted out this old chestnut, "Intelligent design, as the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence (such patterns exhibit specified complexity), subsumes many special sciences, including archeology, forensics, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence." The same bullshit for nearly 20 years.

It should be noted that Dembski claims to have predicted ENCODE's "no junk DNA" conclusion back in 1998

Design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus, on an evolutionary view, we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function.

By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA” were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).

Junk DNA is only a prediction of ID if you make assumptions about the designer and the kind of design it employed.

Observing the world for about eighty years, I've come to the realization that god (or God) doesn't give a damn. Probably having a good time watching the show in the spirit of Kurt Vonnegut's "god the utterly indifferent".

Junk DNA is only a prediction of ID if you make assumptions about the designer and the kind of design it employed.

Correct. I tend to phrase it as a question to the ID person quoting the 'prediction': "Why is it not possible for the ID designer to make a genome with a high percentage of useless DNA?"

I worked on some software many years ago which had redundant code in it that was never called or was unreachable. That may be rare rather than common in software, but logically there's no reason why a designer wouldn't create something with non-functional elements.

Of course, Dembski would never commit to a particular design hypothesis because that wouldn't leave him with wiggle room later on.

Observing the world for about eighty years, I've come to the realization that god (or God) doesn't give a damn. Probably having a good time watching the show in the spirit of Kurt Vonnegut's "god the utterly indifferent".

As a recovering pantheist, I'd like to point out that an omniscient being, in the act of knowing everything, brings everything into existence. That would include all possible universes. A large number. Bigger than the KF Number.

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Observing the world for about eighty years, I've come to the realization that god (or God) doesn't give a damn. Probably having a good time watching the show in the spirit of Kurt Vonnegut's "god the utterly indifferent".

It seems that God was tired, and wanted to take a vacation. However, being everywhere at once, it was a little difficult for him to decide on where to go. So, he called the Archangel Gabriel in on the carpet...

GOD: Gabe, I've got a problem, and I was hoping you could help me out.

GABRIEL: I'll try lord.

GOD: Well, I need a vacation, and I can't decide where I should go, and I was hoping that you could give me some suggestions.

( Gabriel thinks intently for a few seconds,...)

GABRIEL: How about Mercury? That's a nice place.

GOD: Nope, too hot. It takes all night to get over the sun-burn you got during the day.

( Gabriel thinks a little longer.....)

GABRIEL: Hmmmm,.... Well, how about Mars?

GOD: Nope, Mars is too much of a party place. All that whooping and hollering, I never get any rest when I go there.

( Gabriel is starting to get a little desperate by this time....)

GABRIEL: Well, how about Earth?

GOD: NO!! No Way!! The last time I went there, I got this little Jewish girl pregnant, and I haven't heard the end of that yet!

"Earth? Oh, right, that's where they come in to church every Sunday, begging and praying. Day off, my ass!" -- Carlin (RIP)

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

About a decade ago I would muse on what it might take for intelligent design to win the day. Clearly, its intellectual and scientific project needed to move forward, and, happily, that has been happening. But I was also thinking in terms of a watershed event, something that could have the effect of a Berlin Wall coming down, so that nothing thereafter was the same. It struck me that an event like this could involve some notable atheists coming to reverse themselves on the evidence for design in the cosmos.

About a decade ago I would muse on what it might take for intelligent design to win the day. Clearly, its intellectual and scientific project needed to move forward, and, happily, that has been happening. But I was also thinking in terms of a watershed event, something that could have the effect of a Berlin Wall coming down, so that nothing thereafter was the same. It struck me that an event like this could involve some notable atheists coming to reverse themselves on the evidence for design in the cosmos.

We'd think in terms of notable scientists coming up with evidence that changes things, not idiots like Nagel (oh honestly, the guy's been pathetic forever--what's it like to be a bat?) converting.

It's the difference between caring about science, and wanting religion to triumph. Clearly it's not the former that concerns Dembski.

Glen Davidson

I bought the Nagel book in e-format because I thought I might do a review of it. Complete mush, repetitive argument from incredulity. Nods to but ignores ID, cites Meyer, Behe, Berlinski... but not Dembski!! That's gotta hurt.

Basic argument - Science can't be all there is to explaining the universe, because I want to believe Mind is more than what the brain does. If I can state the question it must have value. Common sense must always be able to explain the universe.

He hasn't seem to have heard of quantum mechanics, relativity theory, Godel's Incompleteness Proof, etc. and what they say about 'common sense' explaining the universe. Another old philosopher afraid of dying and even more afraid of the irrelevancy of his life's work.

Common sense? Common sense is a set of guidelines developed from experience, about the things dealt with in day to day life. If things outside of day to day experience don't follow the same patterns, those guidelines can't be assumed to work there.

This is good. Casey Luskin friend's daughter has asked whether intelligent design is science or not. Casey's response: "It is, it is, it is! Look, here is a diagram:"(Image from EN&V)So all you scientists, you can go home now.

Edited by Ptaylor on Nov. 28 2012,10:20

--------------We no longer say: â€śAnother day; another bad day for Darwinism.â€ť We now say: â€śAnother day since the time Darwinism was disproved.â€ť-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."